SCOTUS punches police agencies in the face

[agrab0ekim]

Mei tsuki7

The Living Force

Old Blue Collar Joe

The Living Force

Je Nique vos Merdiers

agrab0ekim

this was surprising how?

Because the police and feds have been doign warrantless GPS tracking for almost a decade now?

I'm going to buy an old car?

Not what it is about. They'd go up and slap a GPS tracker on your car and use it to keep track of where you were, without a warrant. Now they have to have a reason for it. Good ruling.

But all new cars come loaded with one, so wouldn't it be easy for them just to use that instead of waiting for a warrant and all that?

Also, the main character on Alcatraz was driving a '67 Mustang Fastback. That... is a nice ********' car.

The point is they can't track your phone, car, etc that has a GPS without a warrant now when they could before.

*unless they get permission of the property owner (GPS company, phone company, etc.)

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

agrab0ekim

Je Nique vos Merdiers

agrab0ekim

this was surprising how?

Because the police and feds have been doign warrantless GPS tracking for almost a decade now?

1) If the company allows it, then there is no constitutional concern
2) That's probably because it hadn't been said 'no' yet - something isn't uconstitutonal til the court says so

1. If what company allows it? You even read what I wrote, n***a? The police and feds have been doing warrantless GPS tracking.
2. That's a great way for the government to function. Do something that they obviously should not do because the courts haven't said so yet. You and the feds are acting like a bunch of 5-year-olds. "Well, you didn't tell me I couldn't do that!". Obviously GPS tracking is a form of search. It's also trespass to chattels, harrassment, and other things that I would be punished for if I did them but no fed will ever get punished for.

[agrab0ekim]

Je Nique vos Merdiers

agrab0ekim

Je Nique vos Merdiers

agrab0ekim

this was surprising how?

Because the police and feds have been doign warrantless GPS tracking for almost a decade now?

1) If the company allows it, then there is no constitutional concern
2) That's probably because it hadn't been said 'no' yet - something isn't uconstitutonal til the court says so

1. If what company allows it? You even read what I wrote, n***a? The police and feds have been doing warrantless GPS tracking.

Which is fine, if the company (i.e. the GPS company) has given permission. I have a tomtom, all data points are their property by law and by common sense (it's their satellite, I have a salience to use it, etc.), so if they want to show it to the cops, that's their right, with or without an order.

Quote:

2. That's a great way for the government to function. Do something that they obviously should not do because the courts haven't said so yet. You and the feds are acting like a bunch of 5-year-olds. "Well, you didn't tell me I couldn't do that!". Obviously GPS tracking is a form of search. It's also trespass to chattels, harrassment, and other things that I would be punished for if I did them but no fed will ever get punished for.

I agree with you, never said I didn't

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

agrab0ekim

Je Nique vos Merdiers

agrab0ekim

Je Nique vos Merdiers

agrab0ekim

this was surprising how?

Because the police and feds have been doign warrantless GPS tracking for almost a decade now?

1) If the company allows it, then there is no constitutional concern
2) That's probably because it hadn't been said 'no' yet - something isn't uconstitutonal til the court says so

1. If what company allows it? You even read what I wrote, n***a? The police and feds have been doing warrantless GPS tracking.

Which is fine, if the company (i.e. the GPS company) has given permission. I have a tomtom, all data points are their property by law and by common sense (it's their satellite, I have a salience to use it, etc.), so if they want to show it to the cops, that's their right, with or without an order.

Are you ******** stupid? GPS navigators are GPS receivers. The FBI is going to people's houses and installing GPS tracking devices on the undersides of people's cars because their name vaguely resembles a suspected possible terrorist.

[Hawanja]

Director Danguy

Quote:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that police must get a search warrant before using GPS technology to track criminal suspects.

The decision was a defeat for the government and police agencies, and it raises the possibility of serious complications for law enforcement nationwide, which increasingly relies on high tech surveillance of suspects, including the use of various types of GPS technology.

I would say it's a punch in the d**k, but the mod would probably change the title.

In any case it's nice to see the Fourth Amendment being upheld for a change.

Source

Yeah I'm pretty happy about this ruing also, it could have gone either way.

[agrab0ekim]

Je Nique vos Merdiers

agrab0ekim

Je Nique vos Merdiers

agrab0ekim

Je Nique vos Merdiers

agrab0ekim

this was surprising how?

Because the police and feds have been doign warrantless GPS tracking for almost a decade now?

1) If the company allows it, then there is no constitutional concern
2) That's probably because it hadn't been said 'no' yet - something isn't uconstitutonal til the court says so

1. If what company allows it? You even read what I wrote, n***a? The police and feds have been doing warrantless GPS tracking.

Which is fine, if the company (i.e. the GPS company) has given permission. I have a tomtom, all data points are their property by law and by common sense (it's their satellite, I have a salience to use it, etc.), so if they want to show it to the cops, that's their right, with or without an order.

Are you ******** stupid? GPS navigators are GPS receivers. The FBI is going to people's houses and installing GPS tracking devices on the undersides of people's cars because their name vaguely resembles a suspected possible terrorist.

Warentless GPS tracking is both placing a receiver (which is clearly unconstitutional) OR asking a current GPS company who is already providing data to the suspect to give the cops the data. I was merely saying the secondary method was constitutional

[Wendigo]

Old Blue Collar Joe

The Living Force

Je Nique vos Merdiers

agrab0ekim

this was surprising how?

Because the police and feds have been doign warrantless GPS tracking for almost a decade now?

I'm going to buy an old car?

Not what it is about. They'd go up and slap a GPS tracker on your car and use it to keep track of where you were, without a warrant. Now they have to have a reason for it. Good ruling.

Yeah, I swear, man, that's some creepy-a** surveillance to do on people you can't swear out a warrant on.